Target enrichment NGS: capture, amplicon or depletion

Choosing the strategy

1. Decide from input quality and quantity. Amplicon approaches tolerate low and degraded input and give deep coverage of small regions. Capture needs more and better material and gives more uniform coverage across larger target sets. The material you actually have usually settles this.
2. Judge on uniformity, not on percentage on target. A high on target fraction with poor uniformity still leaves regions uncovered, and those regions are where the answer will be missing. Ask for coverage uniformity metrics from real samples rather than the headline enrichment figure.
3. Choose RNA preparation by what you want to see. Poly A selection captures mature messenger transcripts and discards everything else. Ribosomal depletion keeps non coding and unpolyadenylated species and costs more. For degraded material, depletion is usually the only workable route.
4. Treat small RNA as a separate chemistry. Short species need ligation based preparation, careful size selection and their own quality control. Running them through a standard preparation loses them, and normalising them against messenger references is not valid.
5. Include the analysis in the design. Duplicate handling, molecular identifiers and the variant calling approach all interact with the enrichment method. Agree the pipeline before samples are prepared, because some analysis choices require design features added at the library stage.

Uniformity is where panels fail

A panel that covers ninety nine of its hundred regions well and one badly will produce a confident result everywhere except the region that mattered. Because summary metrics average across the panel, this is invisible unless per region coverage is examined.

Ask for per target coverage from the provider's own validation samples, and check the regions you care about specifically. It is the single most useful question in a panel evaluation.

The hidden cost of hybrid capture is hands on time

Capture workflows involve long hybridisation steps and multiple clean ups, and the per sample reagent price says nothing about the technician hours. For laboratories running panels routinely, that time frequently exceeds the reagent cost.

This is where automation pays, and it is also why an apparently more expensive amplicon kit can be the cheaper choice in a small laboratory.

ngs liquid biopsy, and why enrichment decides it

An NGS liquid biopsy looks for circulating tumour DNA that may be a fraction of a per cent of the cell free DNA in a tube of plasma, so the assay is an enrichment and error suppression problem rather than a sequencing one. That means a panel targeted at the variants being reported, deep coverage on those targets, and molecular barcodes so a real low frequency variant can be separated from a PCR or sequencing error. Input amount and pre-analytical handling set the ceiling: a tube left at room temperature dilutes the signal with genomic DNA from lysed white cells.

ngs adapters, and what they carry

An adapter is not just a handle for the flow cell. It carries the platform's binding and priming sequences, the index that identifies the sample, and on any assay that needs error suppression a unique molecular identifier that tags the original molecule. That is why adapter chemistry decides duplicate rates, index hopping between samples in a pool and the minimum input a library can be made from. Match the adapter set to the platform and to the multiplexing you plan, use unique dual indexes where a low frequency variant is being called, and titrate the adapter to input to keep dimers out of the pool.

targeted enrichment, and the two ways to do it

Targeted enrichment means reading part of the genome deeply instead of all of it shallowly, and there are two routes. Amplicon panels amplify the targets with primer pools: cheap, fast, tolerant of low input, and blind to anything the primers miss, with duplicates that carry no information. Hybridisation capture uses biotinylated probes to pull the targets out of a whole-genome library: better uniformity, real duplicate information, tolerance of structural variation, at a higher cost and a longer protocol. Input amount and the variant classes you must detect decide between them.

ctdna analysis, and what the pipeline has to separate

Analysing circulating tumour DNA is a signal separation problem. The tumour fraction may be a fraction of a per cent, so the pipeline has to tell a real variant from a PCR or sequencing error, which is what molecular barcodes and duplex consensus calling are for, and from clonal haematopoiesis, which is a real variant from the blood rather than the tumour and is why a matched white cell sample is sequenced alongside. Pre-analytical handling sets the ceiling: cell free DNA is diluted by genomic DNA from lysed leukocytes within hours in the wrong tube.

ctdna ngs and the depth it demands

ctdna ngs looks for a variant present in a small fraction of the molecules in a plasma sample, so it needs deep coverage, molecular barcoding to distinguish a real variant from a sequencing error, and enough input material to contain the variant at all. Pre-analytical handling, tube type and time to plasma separation are what decide whether the assay can work.

Common questions

Capture or amplicon?

Amplicon for small panels, low input and fast turnaround; capture for larger target sets and better uniformity. Degraded material pushes toward amplicon, and a need to detect structural variation pushes toward capture or untargeted sequencing.

When does enrichment stop being worth it?

When the target set grows large enough that untargeted sequencing at adequate depth costs about the same. That crossover moves as sequencing gets cheaper and is worth recalculating rather than assuming.

Poly A selection or ribosomal depletion?

Selection for intact material where mature transcripts are the question, depletion for degraded material or where non coding species matter. They are not interchangeable and comparing data across them is a confound.

Do molecular identifiers matter?

For detecting low frequency variants, yes, because they distinguish true events from amplification artefacts. For straightforward genotyping they add cost and complexity for little benefit.

Browse by service class

• Compare Gene synthesis on advertised prices